by Cuan Elgin (author of “BULALA”)
The history of the Afrikaner in South Africa stretches back over 360 years; yet they are now, due to the political developments of the past few decades, mistakenly regarded by much of the rest of the world as “newcomers” or even as “foreigners” in this, the land of their birth (and the land of the birth of their forefathers); their Beloved Country.
People whose parents have settled in any other country of the world, are considered “natives” and “citizens”of those foreign lands in which they are born, after only one generation; yet this right has seemingly been “withheld” from the Afrikaners of South Africa—though they have been there for at least 10 generations.
Although my own mother-tongue is English, I speak Afrikaans on a daily basis, and consider myself a man of Africa, born and bred. Technically, it is only really those whose native tongue, or home language is Afrikaans, who are Afrikaners. Currently, anyone of originally European extraction who now considers themself to be a White African, can be regarded, if they so wish, as an Afrikaner; especially of course, those whose home language is Afrikaans, and who identify with the Afrikaner-Boer culture and traditions. However, in my own estimation (based upon my half-century of life experience; much of it spent living and working in South Africa), those who call themselves Afrikaners have rarely been portrayed in an altogether-honest light; even by many of our White cousins abroad. Some in our kindred, Christian, European-descended nations may have been motivated to present this inaccurate image, out of genuine concern for the welfare of other, ethnic Africans. However, many have also been motivated by less-altruistic reasons: such as the modern, liberal notion of “political correctness” (which is ever changing), and will hopefully one day be disregarded, and treated with the disdain which it so rightfully deserves.
White South Africans are sometimes confusingly refered to as Europeans (which they are not, anymore), Afrikaners, or Boers, or even Afrikaner-Boers.
To simplistically explain the difference (if there is one) would be to say that the original, Cape settlers were the forebears of the “Afrikaners” and those who left the Cape and trekked into the vast, largely unoccupied interior, were “Trek-Boers” who eventually settled and established the two Boer Republics of the Transvaal (the ZAR or South African Republic) and the Orange Free State, in the mid-1800’s. Nonetheless, they are one-and-the-same people, and if there does exist any division, it is between those regarded as “Englishspeaking” and “Afrikaans-speaking” White South Africans; although, both groups generally can converse quite easily in the others’ tongue.
The first, permanent White settlers in South Africa were the Dutch, who envisaged establishing a refreshment and resupply station for their ships rounding the Cape of Good Hope, en route to the East in search of trade. They founded Cape Town (then, Kaapstad), within a year of the founding of New York (then, New Amsterdam). Added to the original, Dutch settlers, were German, Flemish, Scandinavian, and in 1688, around 200 French Huguenot families; escaping religious persecution in Europe. After a period of time, employees of this Dutch East India Company were permitted to farm for their own income, in the surrounding areas, so long as they sold their produce to the Company, at prices fixed by the Company.
Then, from 1820, while the country was under later, British governance, many English, Scots, Welsh and Irish families arrived to settle and farm on the Eastern Cape frontier. They were essentially brought in to form a buffer between the southern-most Bantu tribe (the warlike and indolent Xhosa), and the White settlements in the Cape. Despite this growing mix of many cultures and languages, the language of law and commerce in South Africa remained Dutch, which eventually evolved into the hybrid that is today known as Afrikaans; a language that could roll and roar like an African thunderstorm echoing off the cliffs… or whisper and sing like the wind through the acacias.
Thus, the only White African Tribe, the Afrikaner-Boers, have been farming the land in South Africa as long as have the citizens of the United States of America. How ridiculous it would seem to demand that they, the Americans, “hand back” their land to the “original” inhabitants, yet that is precisely what is now being demanded of the farmers (Boers) of South Africa. It must also be clearly stated that Blacks were not the “original” inhabitants of what is now South Africa: In fact, wandering Black herders were moving south into the region at around the same time in history as wandering White herders (Afrikaner Trek-Boers) were steadily moving northwards, from their settlement in the Cape. It was only a century-and-a-half after Cape Town had been established, that the White pioneers first met, and then later clashed with the Black tribes that had begun to settle in the north-east of the country. Thus, all the peoples of South Africa are “settlers” and no group has more or less claim to the land than any other.
Historically, the only peoples who could truly be considered to be “original” inhabitants of South Africa, were very different from the Blacks who now claim all of the land for themselves. These aboriginals were small, scattered stone-age clans of Khoi-Khoi (nicknamed Hottentots) and Khoi-San (called Bushmen), who wandered into the area long before either Whites or Blacks did. Their origins are uncertain, and they display unique racial characteristics. The Khoi-Khoi tribes, nomadic herders, possessed longhorned cattle and fat-tailed sheep and lived in portable hide “tents,” whereas tiny San Bushmen (or Khoi-San), with their deadly poison-tipped arrows, hunted the vast herds of plains-game on the veld of the drier interior. They painted evocative and inspirational hunting-scenes in their caves, and even contrived some moving poetry in their sing-song, clicking language. However, they occasionally clashed with the somewhat taller, more advanced, but similar looking Khoi- Khoi herders. The San Bushmen considered the domesticated livestock of the Khoi-Khoi herders as “fair game”—and since it was simply more easily “hunted,” they freely helped themselves to it.
Warlike, Nguni-speaking Negroid tribes were slowly migrating southwards, ever southwards from west, central and east Africa. Having learned ironworking from the skillful Arab traders of ivory, gold and slaves, these Bantu possessed better weapons than the original inhabitants of southern Africa, the initial Khoi-San and subsequent Khoi-Khoi tribes. These Bantu were also taller and darker, as well as more muscular and robust than either of those aboriginal tribes, which the Bantu considered vastly inferior to themselves.
The Bantu did however, prize the Khoi women as concubines. The Bantu, like the Khoi, brought cattle, sheep, goats and dogs along with them. However, they had yet to discover the wheel and had no written language, and they lived in crude grass-and-mud huts. The Bantu hunted game with spears, or by driving herds into pits, or over cliffs, and gathered veld vegetables and herbs; but they also grew a few crops when they settled long enough at any particular, suitably fertile location; often employing slashand- burn agricultural practices. They built nothing of any substance, and were ruled mostly by brutal despots who thought nothing of slaughtering their own people, on a whim. Ironically, Shaka Zulu, who founded the Zulu nation in the early 1800’s (they were unheard of before this; a minor clan) “cleared” much of the interior of South Africa by his genocidal raids on the surrounding tribes. This left the field open for the Afrikaner-Boers to trek into those devastated areas, and begin settling and building farms and towns. The Bantu tribes did not remain long in any particular region, but soon again moved on, ever southwards, in their quest for new, and greener pastures. They regularly preyed upon any weaker neighbors, stealing their crops and herds, enslaving their womenfolk, and killing off the men, or forcefully assimilating them into their own armies.
Today, the original Khoi and San have been assimilated by, and have inbred with the many other peoples of South Africa, and now mostly call themselves Coloreds, and speak Afrikaans, as opposed to any Bantu-Nguni language. Only in isolated places in the Kalahari Desert can one find scattered bands of almost-pure-blooded Bushmen, some of whom are now enslaved to the Herero and Owambo tribes of Namibia (formerly, South West Africa).
The Boer Republics fought two wars against imperialistic Britain: the first, in 1881, was more of a series of sharp battles, which the Boers easily won, and thereby forced Britain to recognize their independence. The second was a much longer, and much bloodier affair, lasting from 1899 to 1902. This war, which pitted some 50 000 Boer commandos against ten times that many British and Colonial troops, would devastate the country. Britain’s aim was not, as she declared, “to ensure democratic rights for foreigners” in the South African Republic, but to steal their enormous mineral wealth of gold and diamonds. To do so, Britain adopted a barbaric “Scorched Earth” policy of burning over 60 000 Boer farms, and interning some 120 000 Boer women and children in squalorous concentration camps, in which around 30 000 civilians, mostly childen, died.
The British also shipped captured Boers to faraway prison camps, in Barbados, India, Ceylon and on St Helena Island.
When the Boers were finally forced to capitulate, they were a ruined people. It took more than 40 years for them to rebuild their nation to the point where they could finally govern themselves again, and in the following 40 years, they developed South Africa into a modern powerhouse. Unfortunately, their policy of sidelining the Black population from meaningful participation in national government, and of seperating the races as government policy, make them many enemies in the outside world, and the die was then cast.
A true account of the history of South Africa will reveal to the reader other, sinister motivations behind the desire of some people to “demonize” the Afrikaner. The current rulers of this land that we love, have also tampered with the proud Afrikaner history—removing from modern books and periodicals a long list of achievements (or even falsely claiming these accomplishments as their own). They have painted a new, rather distorted picture of Afrikaner history to serve a sometimes disingenuous (and often hostile) agenda, deliberately ignoring the many virtuous achievements of our forefathers, and embellishing instead, those aspects which their liberal, and thus largely anti-Afrikaner readership preferred to read and believe. Some journalists within the liberal (or perhaps misinformed) media of other nations, have themselves believed—usually without doing any factual research of their own—much of the negative propaganda that has been churned out against the Afrikaner. Thus, many journalists are guilty of unscholarly (or even sometimes dishonest) journalism which has resulted from their unwarranted prejudice against the Afrikaner.
Prejudice means to “pre-judge” or “judge before considering the evidence” (or to form a judgment after considering the “evidence” from one side alone). Unwarranted prejudice against the Afrikaner people is the result of not considering historical facts before drawing biased opinions and conclusions. The old motto of the scholarly Welsh druidic priests has as much relevance today as it had centuries ago:
Y Gwir yn erbyn Y Byd! (“The Truth Against the World!”)
Jesus Christ Himself declared,
“…ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:32)
The early attempts of the Afrikaner people to carve out their own place in the African sun, and the subsequent attempts of their descendents to retain that place—in a land which is often (behind its unrivaled natural beauty) harsh and unforgiving—are often viewed negatively by the rest of the world; even though the methods employed by the Afrikaner people were not unique to world events. At times the Afrikaners felt it necessary to employ seemingly heavy-handed methods to preserve what they had given their lives to establish; methods which may be modernly perceived as “politically incorrect.” Yet, again, these methods were not unique to world history and have been practiced by many peoples in most nations to preserve their own distinct national identity.
However, the methods employed by the early Afrikaner pioneers were seldom as harsh as those used by the many other African tribes against each other (and against the Afrikaners themselves). It also needs to be realized that Africa is not a civilized land—and it never has been (though I sincerely pray that it does one day become so). The old adage “drastic times call for drastic measures,” has never been more true than when applied to the history of the Afrikaner in South Africa. Their ancestors were tough, uncompromising men and women, but they held fast to their Biblical beliefs, and eschewed the opinions of those they considered “worldly” or liberal.
An objective observer would have to admit that the measures employed by Afrikaners at times, pale in comparison to the barbaric measures frequently and casually employed against them—even sometimes by kindred nations. Further, the nations of Europe themselves employed those same methods against the other peoples of Africa, whenever it suited their political or economic agendas; yet the Afrikaner people have been unforgivably vilified for it—in reality, often for only defending themselves (a basic human right).
To give a “outside perspective”, it would be useful to consider the assessment of the Afrikaner-Boers by a famous British author, Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle, who wrote the following after serving as a medic in the Anglo- Boer War of 1899-1902. Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle, a well-educated and perceptive man, was of course, the inventor of the equally famous, but fictitious detective, Sherlock Holmes. This is an abridged version:
“The Boer”—Sir Arthur Conan Doyle [From Chapter 1 of his book The Great Boer War (1900)]
“Take a community of Dutchmen of the type of those who defended themselves for fifty years against all the power of Spain at a time when Spain was the greatest power in the world.
“Intermix them with a strain of those inflexible French Huguenots, who gave up their name and fortune and left their country forever at the time of the revocation of the Edict of Nantes.
“The product must obviously be one of the most rugged, versatile, unconquerable races ever seen upon Earth.
“Take these formidable people and train them for seven generations in constant warfare against savage men and ferocious beasts in circumstances in which no weakling could survive: place them so that they acquire skill with weapons and in horsemanship, give them a country which is imminently suited to the tactics of the huntsman, the marksman and the rider.
“Then, finally put a fine temper upon their military qualities by a dour fatalistic Old Testament religion and an ardent and consuming patriotism. “Combine all these qualities and all these impulses in one individual and you have the modern Boer.”
I also urge all readers to pursue further study of their own, by reading reliable books which cover the actual history of the old South Africa (rather than merely accepting the repeatedly revised, “official,” “politically correct” versions presented modernly)—unless one prefers fantasy over reality. In my book “Bulala… A True Story of South Africa” I have placed the facts on the table, in most cases without personal comment, and have thus left it to the reader to draw his or her own conclusions.
Even the godless Friedrich Nietzsche noted,
“The majority of men prefer delusion to truth. It soothes. It is easy to grasp.
Above all, it fits more snugly than the truth into a universe of false appearances…”
Similarly, Leo Tolstoy astutely recognized,
“Shallow ideas can be assimilated. Ideas that require people to reorganize their picture of the world provoke hostility. I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusion which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
Only by doing objective study from the traditional view, and then comparing it to the modern “version” can anyone truly understand the factual history of the Afrikaner nation, as well as the real reasons behind modern ethnic tensions and stereotypes. For instance, the name “Afrikaner” is often synonymous with “Apartheid”, which means “separateness”. The “liberal” Western world would turn against the South African Republic and its proud tribe of White, Afrikaans- and English-speaking pioneers. Much of the West also turned a deaf ear to any South Afrikaners’ attempts to explain why Apartheid was a necessary institution to preserve the integrity of their White, Christian African republic. Though no one listened, the Afrikaners explained why Apartheid was mandatory:
– The Afrikaners themselves refused to live or behave like the Black Africans; – It was required to maintain law, order, and safety, and to preserve their Christian civilization;
– It was necessary to preserve the racial integrity of the White Christian hegemony of their Republic (this in itself was certainly no crime, for all non- White races demanded the same basic right);
– The Afrikaners refused to be “governed” by the Black Africans, who had consistently opposed them; Blacks who had supported an imperialistic invader (Britain) against them; Blacks whose “moral” standards were far different than their own— and because God had commanded it in His Word;
– The Afrikaners refused to allow their independent Republic to revert to barbarism, as all other European colonies in Africa had done, once they succumbed to “Black majority rule” (even though their Republics were never really British “colonies”— the Afrikaners had existed autonomously before the British came and stole their nation from them).
However, the “wind of change” was sweeping through Africa, as a virulent liberalism was raging through the West. The propaganda of the liberal press and libertine Hollywood moguls would hold a monopoly over impressionable minds; the mythical “noble black savage” would be exalted and welcomed with open arms into many European countries (bringing with him a pagan religion, lower standards, and many new vices); rather than enjoying true civilization, the Black African seemingly set about to destroy it by corrupting its institutions. Yet despite his apparently irreparable harm to White, Christian civilization, he received (and continues to receive) nothing but praise from the liberal media and Western governments.
On the other hand, the White Africans, the builders of the only true modern civilization in Africa—who brought peace, safety, and prosperity wherever they settled—would be vilified and become the social pariahs of the world. South Africa, which had already seceded from the British Commonwealth of Nations, was soon expelled from the very United Nations that it helped to establish. Crippling, discriminatory international economic, sporting and military sanctions would be enforced against South Africa—for their “crime against humanity” (which is what the UN declared Apartheid to be)—for wanting to preserve what was theirs, by the unflinching practice of their own, traditional religious and political beliefs, within the borders of their own nation. The White Afrikaners were not guilty of telling other nations how they ought to live; nor were they guilty of oppressing other weaker nations around them—their “crime” was desiring to preserve the integrity of their own institutions and their own nation.
International demands for “democracy” in the White Afrikaner-ruled nation would grow ever more strident—yet, hypocritically, these same liberal nations studiously ignored the glaring fact that 90% of Black African-ruled countries themselves were not democratic, and that not a single Arab-ruled African nation was either.
Yet, the White African tribe endured and even prospered, against all these odds, becoming self-sufficient and self-reliant. They developed a nuclear capability, and also the world’s first viable oil-from-coal facility. They were front-runners in many fields, such as: agricultural science, engineering, aeronautics, advanced weapons and guidance systems, deep-level mining, wildlife conservation, higher education, and medical research—in fact, the world’s first heart transplant was performed in 1967 by Dr. Christiaan Neethling Barnard (1922-2001). The South African Rand was considerably stronger than even the U.S. Dollar, and the standard of living of all South Africans, including the Blacks, was easily the highest in Africa—and was amongst the highest in the world.
Yet even within the Whites own ranks, there were those (mostly Englishspeaking or Jewish) who joined militant Black “liberation movements” and rallied support in the West for these organizations.
The Whites of South Africa (abandoned by the rest of the world) then developed the best-equipped and most-modern army in the southern hemisphere: to protect their new Republic’s borders against a violent wave of communist-armed and trained “black-liberation” armies building up to their north (also supported by many of the nations of Christendom).
Young White men and boys would give their lives in defense of their beloved country, to protect their farms and homes, their parents and siblings, and their wives and children. In the land of their birth (their Afrikaner homeland for three-and-a-half centuries), they would endure the violent and bloody birth-pangs of “Black Consciousness,” then face an internal rising tide of Black terrorism—well-armed and encouraged from abroad. As a result, anarchy would soon stalk their once-safe streets and then ravage their productive, peaceful farms, held back only by the efficiency of the centuries old, rural commando units.
Black students crying “Freedom before education!” would burn to the ground their own schools, civic buildings, clinics, and infrastructure (which the Whites had built for them)—and even cut down the avenues of trees, which the Whites had planted for them, calling them “symbols of colonial oppression.” They would burn alive (utilizing their horrific, diesel-filled, rubber tire “necklaces”) even those of their own people suspected of being “collaborators” with the Whites. They would brutally murder innocent White civilians; even White teachers and nurses, who had devoted their lives to the service and upliftment of Blacks.
The ANC’s (African National Congress) communist-trained “militant wing” of this “Black liberation struggle,” was a group called Mkhonto weSizwe (MK), meaning, the “Spear of the Nation.” This “liberationist” organization would torture and execute hundreds of blacks within their own camps, in the “frontline states” (Angola, Botswana, Mozambique, Namibia, Zambia, and Zimbabwe) whom they suspected as “traitors.” This declared terrorist group, based to the north of the White republic, planted land-mines on South African farm roads, and detonated limpet-mines and car bombs in peaceful towns, indiscriminately killing and maiming innocent civilians (both Black and White). Yet, they never actually confronted the White army in South Africa in battle. In the “frontline state” of Angola, most of the real fighting against the Whites was done for the Black “liberation forces” by 50,000 Cuban troops, outfitted with Russian tanks and Mig fighter-aircraft, which culminated in a stalemate, at the hard-fought Battle of Cuito Cuanivale, in October of 1987.
The San-Bushmen of Namibia, the original inhabitants of that desert land (many of whom had acted as trackers for the South African Army), were dispossessed of half their allotted homeland there by the incoming Black government, as a “punishment” for that allegiance. Notably, many moderate Black Namibian troops also fought alongside the White troops, against the Marxist-led and Cuban-backed infiltrators from Angola, the Owambo, who now have a majority in the new Namibian government.
Yet still, the strongly Christian White African nation endured; preferring to live as an independent ethnic minority under virtual siege—declared an enemy of the world—than to capitulate to communist-backed, Black majority rule and turn their backs on their God and their very heritage.
The Apartheid era itself would last a mere 40 years: one generation — considerably less than the 70 years that the people of Eastern Europe suffered under the heel of communism. Yet, the White Afrikaners reasoned, Apartheid was not some foreign institution imposed upon some other nation, as was the case with communism; it was essentially the “House Rules” a sovereign people established to maintain law and order in their own nation. The primary reason Apartheid was instituted was the absolute refusal of the Whites to have Blacks living permanently within their towns and suburbs. Seeing how the fast-breeding Blacks lived in their own villages—and obeying God’s command to “be separate,” the Afrikaners legislated Apartheid to preserve the integrity and safety their own nation and people.
Further, the Afrikaners, being a Christian people, would not allow dark-arts practicing ancestor-worshipers to live among them; since centuries of missionary efforts, they argued, had produced no real moral advancement or notable spiritual change in the majority of the Black peoples of South Africa.
Yet, the albatross of infamy engendered by “the legacy of Apartheid” would forever be dredged up by the incoming ANC to stigmatize and discriminate against all Whites—and to then justify the passing of legislation to dispossess skilled White South Africans of their jobs, and White farmers of their land, even two decades after the Whites themselves had abolished the policy of Apartheid. Hypocritically, the Black government now began to impose racially discriminatory legislation against the 8.5% ethnic-minority Whites; but now that “the tables had been turned,” such racial discrimination was considered to be a good thing.
This duplicity is the modus operandi that international communists have ever employed in their attempts to undermine all sovereign Christian nations. It is alleged that communistic (and thus atheistic) liberals put the White Christians on a contrived “guilt trip,” by declaring their segregationist attitude and practices to be “unChristian,” and even “immoral.” A wedge is thus driven in among society to weaken it from within (divide and conquer). Once legislative concessions have been made and all have been declared, “political equals,” then the masses of non-Whites “democratically” outvote the White Christians in their own lands.
Once the non-Whites hold the power, the very same so-called “oppressive,” discriminatory, “racist” laws which the Fabianised liberals declared to be “immoral,” are then re-legislated against the White Christian minority in their own land. Since only the nations of Christendom have stood in the way of communist world domination, all White Christian nations have purposely been weakened, and some destroyed in this fashion.
Before the 20th Century drew to a close however, the status quo in the Republic of South Africa would change dramatically. An Afrikaner lawyer named F.W. (Frederik Willem) De Klerk (born 1936), would become President of South Africa (1989-1994). He was a leader within the conservative circles of the nation, who had espoused traditional views concerning segregation— however, once he became president he incomprehensibly made a 180° change in his philosophy, and in his first speech, he tried to convince his own people that they should “share power” with the Black masses.
De Klerk—called by some ’n Volksveraaier (“a Folk-betrayer”)—lifted the ban on the ANC (which had been considered a terrorist group) and released its leaders (including Nelson Mandela) from prison. Gullible, liberal Whites were beguiled into believing that a democratically elected, Black majority government (composed of those who had objected so violently to being “discriminated against” on the grounds of their race), would be “fair,” once elected. These liberal Whites were soon rudely awakened to the reality of race once the Blacks, upon gaining power, vengefully re-imposed many of those very same discriminatory laws against the tiny White minority. Many of those (again, mostly English-speaking or Jewish) liberals left the country soon after coming to this belated realization.
A new, rapacious Black government was swept into power by an overwhelmingly Black majority vote. An autocratic Black regime then—for the first time ever in Afrikaner history—would begin to rule over, and then legislate against the Whites in the Whites’ own country: a country which they had transformed from an untamed wilderness, with their blood, sweat and tears, into a veritable utopia. Many common Blacks would then also begin to take their own brutal, perceived “revenge” on those whom they considered their former “oppressors”—all White people.
During the very first decades of Black majority rule, violent Black criminals would brutally torture, burn, shoot, and hack to death thousands of peaceful, White farmers, savagely violate their wives and daughters, and even brutally murder many of the White peoples’ faithful Black and Colored workers. These rural Whites could no longer rely upon the protection of the voluntary White commandos—because the ANC had disarmed and outlawed them as “White supremacist groups.”
Merciless Black criminals, unopposed, would also begin killing innocent White civilians in their own homes, in their towns and in the cities. Yet, not a single, Black South African politician—nor even a single White liberal politician (previously so vocal in condemning the “unjust treatment” of Blacks)—would utter a word of protest against, or condemnation of this slaughter of innocent people. Not only was this obviously immoral, it was foolish and even suicidal: for they were allowing the genocide of the Afrikaner-Boers—the farmers—the very food-producers of their country (the very backbone of the rural areas). But the world—even the Christian world— would turn a “blind eye” to the Blacks in their “ethnic cleansing” of White, Christian Afrikaners (and the world continues to turn a blind eye to this day). Yet, the growing Black masses would depend, for their very lives, upon the infrastructure and farms painstakingly built by those hardy White African pioneers: both Afrikaner-Boer and British. Sadly, these two European peoples —kinsmen—had been set on a collision path, laid two centuries earlier and then reinforced a century later (by hidden powers): so they would destroy one another. The Boers and the British did not realize that the real enemies of their civilization stood impatiently on the sidelines, like hyenas, watching and waiting, for their own chance to grasp the reins of power and divide the spoil.
When the dust finally settled, South Africa would be under the leadership of a wily Xhosa lawyer: who had been jailed for sabotage and for trying to start a “race-war.” The name of that Xhosa lawyer was of course, the famous Nelson Rolihlahla Dalibhunga Mandela (1918 – 2013). His second name coloquillay means, “troublemaker” or “he who shakes the tree.” During South Africa’s post-Apartheid war crimes tribunal (the “Truth & Reconciliation Commission,” chaired by Archbishop Desmond Tutu) it was revealed that while the White “Apartheid regime” had murdered just over 500 of their (mainly Black) political opponents—the ANC-dominated Black “liberation movement” had murdered over 22,000 of their own (mainly Black) political opponents!
Mandela was eventually freed from prison (largely as the result of British interference and pressure from liberals in other Western nations)— despite still professing the belief that violence was a legitimate political tool to wrest the government and the nation from the Whites. Though Mandela claimed to espouse “democracy” (when it was to his benefit, as a sure means of gaining power in South Africa), he consistently criticized the leaders of western democracies—while his close personal friends included people such as Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, Libya’s Muamar Gadaffi, and Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat.
After lengthy “negotiations” to “share power” with the Black majority under a new constitution (which was the only mandate that a majority of the White electorate had given their leader), De Klerk and his henchmen ignored pleas (as did the mainstream press) from Afrikaners to establish ’n toevlug in die weste, (“a refuge in the west”)—in the historically “White” Western Cape. Afrikaners were demanding their own state, or at the very least, a federation of states, wherein they could exercise a degree of self-determination. But the De Klerk team suddenly capitulated to the Black “negotiators” and agreed to a universal franchise vote. This basically guaranteed that the ANC would easily and overwhelmingly win the election and then wield absolute power. The ANC swiftly began bussing-in tens of thousands of Xhosas from their Eastern Cape homeland, to the cities, and especially to Cape Town; establishing sprawling squatter-camps there to ensure that they would have sufficient “loyal voters” ready to swing the elections their way.
It is a common misconception that the ANC’s leader in these early elections, Nelson Mandela, had been jailed for his “political beliefs.” He was in fact acquitted of treason after a 4-year trial, but re-arrested a few years later, and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment for launching an armed insurrection (as founder and commander-in-chief of Mkhonto weSizwe, the ANC’s militant wing). He was then later charged with 193 counts of terrorism: for sabotage and for trying to smuggle, prepare, or manufacture (mostly Soviet-bloc) munitions, including: 210,000 hand-grenades, 48,000 anti-personnel mines, 144 tons of ammonium-nitrate, 21.6 tons of aluminum powder, 1,500 timing devices, and 2,000 lbs. of black gunpowder. Among his many alleged coconspirators were 3 communist Jews: Denis Goldberg, Arthur Goldreich, and Lionel “Rusty” Bernstein. Nelson Mandela’s personal Makarov pistol (“for killing White policemen”) which he buried in Rivonia before his arrest during the ANC’s “armed struggle,” was never recovered.
These were clearly not “trumped-up” political charges. In his eloquent closing statement to the court, Mandela candidly admitted his guilt on the charge of sabotage, adding that he was, if needs be, prepared to die for his ideals. It was apparent from the huge amount of smuggled explosives that he was not planning to die alone.
Nelson Mandela was sentenced to life imprisonment; not summarily executed, as he undoubtedly would have been, in any Black African country at that time, for the same offenses. Some made fanciful comparisons with the fate of plotter Guy Fawkes, who was burned at the stake for his failed attempt to blow up the British parliament in 1605. However Mandela conspired not just to bring down the government—he was planning on killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians in his quest for power. The judge at his trial did in fact comment that “personal ambition” may well have played a role in his plans. Mandela boldly admitted his guilt. He was never tortured during either his interrogation or incarceration (as he undoubtedly would have been in a Black nation). In fact, he was generally treated humanely by his White captors; eventually being transferred from Robben Island, to the mainland, and living comfortably in a cottage in the grounds of the prison for the latter part of his incarceration. During this time, Nelson Mandela wrote a dissertation titled, “How to be a Good Communist.”
Although he was approached and offered an early release by then-president Pieter Willem (P.W.) Botha (1916-2006), in the mid-1980’s, Mandela still steadfastly refused to renounced his commitment to violence. Likewise, even when he eventually gained an early release (by F.W. De Klerk), about 6 years later, on the condition that he commit his party to peaceful negotiations, he still refused to renounce violence. As he walked free from the prison grounds, accompanied by his second wife Nomzamo “Winnie” Madikizela-Mandela (born 1936) he raised his fist in a “Black Power” salute.
Further, in the first speech that he made as a “free man,” he brazenly announced that the armed struggle would continue. “The rest,” as they say, “is history.” Nelson Mandela subsequently led his communist-aligned ANC to an overwhelming victory in the first “fully democratic” South African elections in 1994.
One of their favorite chants at political rallies to this day is:
“Bulala AmaBuhnu” (Kill the Boers).
The Afrikaner-Boers, as “People of the Book” (who they believe themselves to be), “live by the Book.” As they answer to God and not to men, they consider themselves dutibound to keep themselves separate from other races (and believe themselves to be justified in so doing). They have a wry sense of humor and an endearing, “old school” manner.
It should again be noted that racial exclusiveness within a nation is nothing unusual and it is not a phenomenon found merely among White nations. No other people on the face of the earth (except European peoples) automatically grants to dissimilar foreigners the status of equality and a voice in the government. Even today, in China, Arab nations, Israel, India, and Black African nations, White Christians are never automatically extended “equality” or any “right” to have a say in how those nations are governed. It is only natural and proper that all nations retain their own sovereignty and preserve the integrity of their people. However, hypocritically, these principles of “equality” are not applied consistently.
It also should be remembered that the Afrikaners did not invade established metropolises of Black Africa and then “take over.” The Afrikaners themselves built those cities out of uninhabited wastelands and developed them; to which the Blacks later flocked, to partake of the benefits of civilization.
All the Afrikaners have ever really wanted, is to rule themselves, on their own land. That is as true today, as it has ever been. Let it be! It behooves them, then, as an honest, God-fearing, law-abiding people, rather than trying to erase the less-admirable aspects of their individual histories, to study history “as it was.” Only by studying and accepting the reality of the past are we able to recognize any questionable actions of our ancestors—and then use that knowledge to rise above their mistakes, and thus not follow in their sometimes faulty footsteps.
Sadly, Winston Churchill (who was captured in South Africa during the Anglo-Boer War) observed, “The history of mankind is the history of war.” The famous Irishman and British statesman, Edmund Burke (1729-1797) declared, “Those who fail to learn from history are destined to repeat it.”
May we all, by looking in the mirror of history, see the reality of the times reflected from the past, so that we can consciously choose a better reality for ourselves, and for our children in the generations still to come.
Cuan Elgin June 2015 South Africa.